Clause in junior contract that allows terms to vary is “a form of slavery,” says barrister
BMJ 2016; 353 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2473 (Published 29 April 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;353:i2473
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It was plain from day one, Jeremy Hunt was fully aware of and probably relying on the said NHS clause (..absolute discretion to review, revise, amend..) which Dyer refers to [1]. Hence, it is surprising that the BMA’s “legal experts” thought that even implied reliance on such obviously unfair clause was not worthy of legal challenge. Arguably, it would be an irrational and disproportionate decision to wait until contract imposition (and consequences thereof to thousands of junior doctors) to challenge such effectively unlawful clause. However, as Justice for Health’s [2] lawyers have now challenged the very same contractual issue, there is some hope for junior doctors to ensure legal certainty. Hence, Dyer’s piece [1], in particular the seemingly commissioned remarks of barristers, looks like a belated attempt to appease those who are unhappy about BMA’s failure to launch a legal challenge with regard to unilateral variation of contracts.
References
[1] 2016;353:i2473
[2] http://www.justiceforhealth.co.uk/
Competing interests: No competing interests
Where is the reciprocal clause?
Doctors “reserve the right from time to time in their absolute discretion to review, revise, amend or replace any term or condition of this contract and to introduce new policies and procedures, in order to reflect and respond to the changing needs or requirements of their families and for patient safety.”
Competing interests: Not a lawyer
Re: Clause in junior contract that allows terms to vary is “a form of slavery,” says barrister
Dear Dr Ilangaratne
Please see Dr Hicklin's response of 9 May and mine of 11 May.
I am supporting the juniors (also by pledging a contribution to their legal fight).
On a historical note:
Fifty something years ago (the NHS was just entering its teens) as a junior I was asked to sign a contract which required me to administer anaesthetics when called upon to do so. Never having given a GA in my life, I struck off the offending clause and handed the top copy to the hospital secretary (there were no Chief Executives then). The Hospital Secretary groaned but accepted my modification.
Competing interests: Old man. Need the NHS staffed by competent, happy doctors.